“For the first time we will start factoring in the true cost of greenhouse gas emissions into our economy. This is in line with developments in the rest of the world.

The sooner we get on top of this challenge, the sooner we can reap the benefits of providing low carbon goods and services that are attractive to affluent overseas markets. There is much to be gained by grasping this opportunity.

While there will be extra costs for some sectors, I am confident that the support the government is providing both to households and to businesses will smooth the transition we absolutely must make, if we are to play our part in the global struggle against climate change.”

The National Party will ensure that New Zealand acts decisively to confront this challenge.

The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them…

… National is committed to growing our economy. Confronting climate change will be a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth…

… In the decades ahead, peoples’ perceptions around climate change will affect the brand image of New Zealand and its exports. New Zealand must take credible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk becoming a trading pariah…

… National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal…

… National will bring all Kiwis – industry, energy producers, farmers, mums and dads – closer to a shared and well-understood goal. We need to be united in our pursuit of a ’50 by 50′ target.“

“National supports the principle of the ETS and is following the select committee process closely. National has had reservations about the timing of new taxes on motorists and households when there has been no personal tax relief for so long.”

“ The scheme currently steps up on 1 January 2013 to a full obligation for the transport, electricity and industrial sectors. National’s intention is to phase this in three equal steps on 1 January 2013, 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2015 as recommended by the ETS Review Panel…

… It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet. The lack of any practical and real technologies to reduce agricultural emissions means it would only impose a cost or tax on our most important export industry. It would also have New Zealand too far ahead of our trading partners on climate change mitigation measures. National will review the position in 2014 and only include agriculture if new technologies are available and more progress is made internationally on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “

“John Key says the Government will wait for other countries to follow suit before introducing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme…

…The Government says it will leave agriculture out of the ETS until at least 2015, despite 47% of the country’s emissions coming from that sector

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser told Tadio NZ’s Morning Report on Tuesday there is no point in New Zealand leading the way if other countries such as the United States and China are doing nothing.” – Radio NZ

National’s rejection of the ETS for the farming industry and removing egg producers from the ETS is now complete.

It must be clear to practically everyone by now that despite National’s ongoing “firm assurances” from May 2007 to May 2010, that they would support and maintain an Emissions Trading Scheme, that their real agenda all along was entirely the opposite.

The entry of agriculture into the ETS was accepted; “reviewed”; postponed; and then cancelled altogether. Only a procedural law change now remains to make it fully legal.

It has taken four years to achieve it, but National’s pledges to commit to an ETS are now shown to be the lies that they are.

During National’s four years in office, they have broken several promises and the weakening of the ETS is simply one more on the list. It also further highlights John Key’s ability to say one thing – whilst knowing full well that he has no intention of fulfilling committments, or will do completely the opposite.

Remember what Key told reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on the ETS, on 8 April 2010,

“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”

Key’s pledge that agriculture would enter the ETS in 2015 has been broken, and our Prime Minister further shown up as the untrustworthy, lying, manipulator that a growing number of critics are labelling him.

If there is one lesson that National has learnt from our recent history is that if you’re going to break promises – do it slowly so no one notices.

Unfortunately for John Key and his cronies, New Zealanders have noticed.

Key IS on a time limit, his current term of PM, IF he’s lucky enough to see it through, his aim is to cause maximum damage in as short a time frame as possible, I wouldn’t be surprised if he pisses off to live in America with all of his banking buddies, once his term is up.

ETS is a mechanism to transfer wealth away from the middle classes and to seed sovereignty into the hands of an international unelected world government that exist under the guise of being a body for the oversight of climate change. Humans would do much better if the temperature were to rise by 2 degrees, this has been the case with all societies that flourished in the past. Considering the scam it will be difficult for National to enforce ETS although they will do it regardless and NZ will settle for it as we settle for everything we are told is good for mother nature and personal health and safety.

“Humans would do much better if the temperature were to rise by 2 degrees, this has been the case with all societies that flourished in the past.”

Can’t agree, Aghora. Raising the temperature would cause incalculable destruction as polar caps melted; lowlands flooded; arable land was lost; and millions made to migrate.

Bangla-Desh, for example, would be flooded, and millions displaced.

Storms would become more energy-laden and ferocious.

Disease-causing insects would migrate to regions further north and south.

Our entire eco-system would change radically, causing mass-extinctions as many species failed to adapt.

The notion that climate change is a scam is something perpetuated by vested interests; oil companies; coal industry; farming interests; etc. Anti-climate change groups have been funded by the petro-chemical industry.

And whilst these corporations continue to make vast profits, it is the tax-payer (you and me) that pays to make futile attempts to stem ongoing damage caused by increasing limate change effects.

Also, the idea that there is a two sided debate about the environment between oil companies and governments is the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard. The two sides are presented so that we argue, they do not exist in real life as the same families that run the climate scam are the same families that own the natural resources. They have simply framed the debate for the public in the hope that we will stay within that presented discourse and not look at the actual consequences of what is being proposed.

“Temps were much warmer in the past and it was good. Who says all that bad stuff would happen?”

True. There were much greater temperature variations. The difference though is that (with some exceptions), those temperature changes happened gradually, over long periods of time, giving life forms time to adapt…

Acidfication of the Ocean water is happening now, no more Bluff Oysters for Bellamies in parliament, then the crayfish will be a thing of the past cos the acid will dissolve the shells which is already happening in the shellfish farms of America! But then this Govt just fluffs around!

Also, the idea that there is a two sided debate about the environment between oil companies and governments is the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard. The two sides are presented so that we argue, they do not exist in real life as the same families that run the climate scam are the same families that own the natural resources. They have simply framed the debate for the public in the hope that we will stay within that presented discourse and not look at the actual consequences of what is being proposed.

Scientist says oysters are the canaries in the mine for ocean acidification, and US oysters can’t grow in many local waters. Yes another consequence of GHG emissions. Oceans absorb 30% of the worlds CO2 emissions. How much is too much?